In three countries that established Contracta formal, written agreement for a specified duration signed by (at least) two parties. In Contracts2.0, we acknowledge the existence of informal contracts but use formal contracts to focus the research. More Innovation Labs in one or several case study regions explicit changes have been made in the policymaking on AECM notably inspired by contracts2.0. Elements of the innovative contracta formal, written agreement for a specified duration signed by (at least) two parties. In Contracts2.0, we acknowledge the existence of informal contracts but use formal contracts to focus the research. More proposals are now being implemented. Many innovation labs found themselves in several stages of implementation (negotiation, testing, mainstreaming) at once. This may be due to the fact that they are working on several contracts at the same time or because only some elements of the proposed contracta formal, written agreement for a specified duration signed by (at least) two parties. In Contracts2.0, we acknowledge the existence of informal contracts but use formal contracts to focus the research. More have moved on to the testing or implementation phase. The main challenges to implementation were, among others, the lack of support from policy, realistically aligning the innovative structures with existing regulations, and the lack of financing for important intermediaries. Some CILs also lacked the interest from farmers or struggled with the need to raise public awareness. This goes to show, that a participatory process needs to be properly set up, and considerable effort is needed for successful continuation. At the same time, the successes make a significant difference and set a motivating example. 

Belgium

In Flanders, Belgium, groups of farmers will be beneficiaries for non-productive investments under the new CAP. Contracts2.0 action partner BoerenNatuur Vlaanderen (BNVL) together with research partner INBO and the support of multiple regional stakeholders also succeeded in including results-based elements in the new AECM on botanical grassland management. Furthermore, one province is willing to scale up an agglomeration bonusis an additional payment to the providers of ecosystem services (ES) if an environmental outcome has been achieved at a larger spatial scale (e.g., beyond the field/ farm scale, within a predefined region/landscape or watershed). ... More for erosion control to more areas in Flanders. The Flemish case study is a good example of the real-life changes contracts2.0 was able to generate. In addition, organisers of local CILs and the PIL observed a high interest in implementing more innovative approaches in the future and while the process of incorporating new measures into the Strategic Plan somewhat exceeds the project running time, the participatory process succeeded in connecting the essential stakeholders to take the processes further. The video produced on the consortium field trip to the Flemish case study regions also depicts the positive practitioner perspectives on the project and the topic (see here).

Spain

In the Madrid Region, a new AECM has been added to the Madrid Rural Development Plan thanks to the work of project action partner Heliconia and project research partner UAM. A measure for non-productive investments for agri-environmental objectives now allows land stewardship entities to become beneficiaries of the aid to support farms through contracts. The Spanish project partners have also organised seminars to introduce this new measure to local stakeholders and have presented their work on multiple occasions (e.g. webinars and conferences) in the region to raise awareness. This is a positive impact of the bottom-up approach exercised within the CIL / PIL Madrid where shortcomings of current agri-environmental contracts and consequently possibilities for improvement were identified. Solutions for real-life implementation were discussed with the local stakeholders to ensure a legitimate addition to the AECM and thus, a direct impact on policy design can be reported.

Germany

Several federal states will include a collective approachrefers to a collection of approaches that involve more than two individuals or parties who are progressing towards a common goal by undertaking collective action. Collective approaches may make use of collective contracts and coll... More for AECM, for example following the example of Dutch collectives. The bottom-up participatory approach in contracts2.0 helped foster the international knowledge exchange on the topic significantly.

Although not formally part of contracts2.0 and its CILs/PILs, the case of German federal state of Brandenburg is included here because it offers a further example of the introduction of innovative contracts, namely collective contracts. Brandenburg was the first German state legally implementing collective AECM. Inspired by the Dutch model, collective AECM were introduced with the CAP funding period starting in 2023, though as additional option next to individual AECM (instead of switching the whole system, like in the Dutch case). Jointly with the German Landcare Association (Deutscher Verband für Landschaftspflege, DVL), contracts2.0 project coordinator ZALF worked on developing mandatory and optional criteria for the institutional design and actor constellation within a collective and the design of collective contracts to derive policy implications and recommendations (in accordance with work carried out in WP2 on the analysis of existing contracts). This has been done by integrating results and experiences of contracts2.0 and a series of interviews with farmers in Brandenburg. ZALF also invited the Brandenburg ministry of agriculture, environment and climate protection (MLUK) – which was strongly engaged in promoting the collective approachrefers to a collection of approaches that involve more than two individuals or parties who are progressing towards a common goal by undertaking collective action. Collective approaches may make use of collective contracts and coll... More – to the contracts2.0 CIL/PIL exchange in Germany. The idea of introducing collective AECM to Brandenburg was initiated by the ministry itself. By inviting a driving member of said ministry to CIL/PIL exchanges, practical aspects of the implementation of collectives and their inclusion in Strategic Plans were shared with other German federal states, serving as a successful inspiration for many. Especially interesting was the many detailed insights in the necessary regulatory framework for the legal implementation of collectives as an addition to individual AECM.
The most important aspects gathered from the farmer interviews in Brandenburg were the desire for more flexibility (concerning land tenureLand tenure is an institution, i.e., rules invented by societies to regulate behaviour. Rules of tenure define how property rights to land are to be allocated within societies. They define how access is granted to rights to use, c... More, occurrence of extreme weather events, contracting time), a reduction of the bureaucratic workload and financial attractiveness of the new scheme. Generally, farmers are convinced of the ecological effectiveness of the collective approachrefers to a collection of approaches that involve more than two individuals or parties who are progressing towards a common goal by undertaking collective action. Collective approaches may make use of collective contracts and coll... More and expect increased knowledge exchange and the possibility of learning.

Contracts2.0 contributed to the realisation of the collectives in Germany through extensive research on the Dutch model, providing contacts to Dutch colleagues and the series of interviews with Brandenburg farmers that were delivered to the ministry, which took them into account when designing the new collective approachrefers to a collection of approaches that involve more than two individuals or parties who are progressing towards a common goal by undertaking collective action. Collective approaches may make use of collective contracts and coll... More. Including the farmers’ perspectives in the contracta formal, written agreement for a specified duration signed by (at least) two parties. In Contracts2.0, we acknowledge the existence of informal contracts but use formal contracts to focus the research. More design will arguably have a positive impact on their legitimacy and acceptance. Due to the close involvement of project partner ZALF, the German experiences and insights could also be translated into English for the other project partners’ benefit.

Currently, 5 collectives are being established in Brandenburg. The current CAP funding period is considered to be a pilot phase and trial period, in which regulations concerning the collectives are not yet “set in stone” and allow for some flexibility. Due to time constraints, no specific new measures have been introduced yet. In fact, during the current funding period, the previous (individual) measures (AECM) are now possible to be carried out collectively. However, for the following funding periods, the introduction of new collective AECM is planned.

© Picture: Eszter Cibik, ONPD, Hungary

In his Master thesis, Max Sonntag analysed the potential for combining collective and payment-by-results elements for agri-environmental contracts, based on interviews with ten intermediaries from England. These intermediaries are facilitators of farmer groups who receive funding from the Countryside Stewardship Facilitation Fund (CSFF) for their work to align the management options of farmers on largely adjoining holdings.

The key research question of this study was “What are potential benefits and challenges of combining a collaborative payment for ecosystem services approach with results-based measures?” The particular focus was the role of the intermediary, here the facilitator of a Facilitation Fund group in England (see Practice Abstract 2 here).

Facilitators are responsible for bringing together a group of (at least four) farmers, covering at least 2,000 ha of (largely) adjoining land. They organise group meetings and farm walks, invite expert speakers and align the Countryside Stewardship management options that farmers enrol in. CSFF is technically not a collective contractSee collective contractual models. More, as the payment is transferred only to the facilitator. The degree to which the farmers collaborate depends on their individual engagement in the group. There tends to be less cooperationSee collaboration. More when there is a high proportion of pre-existing individual agri-environmental contracts within the group (Jones et al., 2020, p. 65) as farmers cannot change their contracts before the agreed end date.

Facilitators in this study worked with groups in the regions where the Results Based Agri-environment Payment Scheme (RBAPS) pilot in Northern England (Wensleydale) and East Anglia (Norfolk and Suffolk) was implemented. Therefore, they had an awareness of what a results-based approach could entail, and some farmers in these areas had made positive experiences with the pilots (more information). 

Combination is promising…

In general, facilitators thought that a combination of collective and results-based elements was a good idea and would work well. Five interviewees commented that the Facilitation Fund groups could be used as a platform by farmers to exchange and share knowledge on how to achieve results, and farmers in the group could more easily be trained to undertake self-assessments of results achieved. Alternatively, the facilitator would be on hand to help with the assessment of their plots. Three interviewees stated the result-based approach could enhance friendly competition among members, and access to results-based payment options could encourage more farmers to join the group. There was also the view that farmers who are members of Facilitation Fund groups already demonstrated an interest in learning and innovation regarding environmental activities and therefore would likely be keen to explore result-based options.

…but are there enough trained facilitators? 

Facilitators stressed that results-based payment are not suitable for every case. Indicators needed to be carefully chosen to ensure they are reliable and do not result in a high administrative workload for the farmers, and results-based paymentsare an approach where farmers and land managers are paid for delivering environmental outcomes, for example for enhancing the presence of important grassland species. In these schemes, farmers determine the management required to ... More needed to be coupled with a base payment (e.g. via an action-based measure) to reduce the risk to farmers. Current facilitation fund facilitators were seen to be well placed to work with groups to expand into result-based schemes. However, some interviewees had doubts whether there are enough facilitators with the right skills available to be able to advise farmer groups on results monitoring and effective group work at the same time. This suggested additional training for facilitators would need to be made available if such a combination of approaches was to be rolled out.

Onerous paperwork is a barrier 

Interviewees had concerns about the amount of paperwork. Five facilitators already perceived the administrative work related to the Facilitation Fund as onerous, and were weary of an increase if a results-based approach added to this load. In addition, many Facilitation Fund groups currently have no monitoring activities in place, neither with regard to the outcomes of their agri-environmental management, nor the success and social capital of the group as a whole (Prager, 2022). This lack of experience may be a particular hurdle for setting up a result-based approach and the related assessment and reporting activities.

In a scenario of combined collective and result-based elements, a majority of the interviewed facilitators believe that assessing results of management activities, helping with monitoring and providing 1-to-1 advice would be a key aspect of their new role. Others felt their role would not change much: they would continue to facilitate the group’s work as a neutral third party, organise training and help with spatial targeting.

Facilitator role is similarly important in other countries

In conclusion, facilitators have an important role in supporting farmer groups in environmental management. This is in line with observations from other agri-environment climate schemes, such as the Dutch national collective scheme (Berner, 2021), or the result-based Burren Programme in Ireland (Nietzschmann, 2021, Master thesis, more information), where facilitators are involved in multiple roles. These include, for instance enabling communication and coordinationdescribes farmers working towards a shared goal, but without personal interaction. The alignment of actions toward the shared goal is achieved by an entity that coordinates the activities. Belongs to the range of collective approa... More among participating famers, offer advice and extension services, assist with the spatial targeting of measures to the most suitable areas in the landscape, join in the monitoring activities, or re-distribute and administer payments to farmers received from the government.

Facilitators view a combination of collective and results-based approaches favourably and most are ready to embrace the challenge of this innovation. Nevertheless, a number of design and administrative challenges remain to be tackled.

To cite: Sonntag, M. (2021): Combining a collaborative PES approach with a payments-by-results approach in England: Process Net-Map interviews with Countryside Stewardship Facilitation Fund’s intermediaries. Master thesis in Integrated Natural Resource Management at Humboldt University Berlin, December 2021.

Supervision: Claudia Sattler (ZALF) & Martin Scheele (HU)

Blogpost written by: Katrin Prager & Claudia Sattler 

Pictures: Jennifer Dodsworth & Katrin Prager (taken at a contracts2.0 stakeholer workshop in Ireland)